Re: Batch closing of issues (ISSUE-144, ISSUE-187, ISSUE-190, ISSUE-173, ISSUE-138) [pls Respond by Jan 30]

ISSUE-190: We have agreed on a technical mechanism for conveying multiple first parties.  We have not, however, agreed on whether that mechanism MUST or merely MAY be used.  I'm indifferent to whether that keeps this ISSUE open or requires a new ISSUE.

ISSUE-144 and ISSUE-187: I will likely be unable to call into Wednesday's session.  I've previously articulated my concerns about the new(ish) exception model.  I prefer the original direction.

Jonathan


On Monday, February 11, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:

> Hi Team,
> 
> fyi: I have closed ISSUEs 190, 173, 138
> I have left ISSUE-144 and ISSUE-187 open for our Wednesday discussion.
> 
> Regards,
> matthias
> 
> On 21/01/2013 08:07, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
> > Hi Team,
> > 
> > I suggest to batch-close the issues listed below that have been marked 
> > PENDING REVIEW for a while.
> > If you disagree with my proposal to close any of those issues, please 
> > respond by Wednesday, Jan 30.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > matthias
> > --------------------------------
> > ISSUE-138: Web-Wide Exception Well Known URI
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/138
> > 
> > The issue was how to obtain exceptions without Javascript-able 
> > real-estate. Our discussions are reflected in Section 6.8 of the 
> > current spec and (unless someone objects), I plan to close ISSUE-138.
> > --------------------------------
> > ISSUE-144: User-granted Exceptions: Constraints on user agent behavior 
> > while granting and for future requests?
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/144
> > 
> > IMHO, the new approach to exceptions has removed the requirements on 
> > the user agent.
> > As a consequence, I believe we can close this issue.
> > --------------------------------
> > ISSUE-187: What is the right approach to exception handling?
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/187
> > 
> > During the last call, I validated that there is a general preference 
> > for pursuing our rivised approach to exceptions (where the sites 
> > records preference and the UA may double-check it with the user). All 
> > participants can live with this approach.
> > I suggest to close ISSUE-187.
> > ----------------------------------
> > ISSUE-190: Sites with multiple first parties
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/190
> > 
> > Roy has proposed changes as response to ACTION-328 and (unless there 
> > are objections), I suggest to implement the changes suggested:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Nov/0004.html
> > 
> > -----------------------------------
> > ISSUE-173: The TPE uses "top-level domain" in a sense that is not the 
> > normal meaning
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/173
> > 
> > AFAIK, David Singer has introduced the corresponding bug fixes to the 
> > spec. This ISSUE has thus been resolved and can be closed.
> > 
> 
> 
>